NationStates Jolt Archive

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

In your dreams.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Attack can be the best offense. If we are to preserve life, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the lives of the few to preserve the many. I am not saying, by any stretch that this is the way it should be. But when the deliberate killing of x can save the lives of 16x, or even x + 1, then the killing is morally defensible.

While purely defensive measures are the ideal, they often do not prevent the greatest loss...

Attack can be the best offense. If we are to preserve life, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the lives of the few to preserve the many. I am not saying, by any stretch that this is the way it should be. But when the deliberate killing of x can save the lives of 16x, or even x + 1, then the killing is morally defensible.

While purely defensive measures are the ideal, they often do not prevent the greatest loss...

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks. So really any moral justification for it has to be based on the idea that Americans are somehow more important than everyone else. That and of course if anything it has caused even more to hate America therefore increasing the chance of another terrorist attack.

Also this should probably be in general unless there is some terrorism resolution I am unaware of.

Unless the hypothesis (that future terrorist acts will be averted) is accepted...

Attack can be the best offense.

Isn't that what attacking is, offense as opposed to defense?

Y'all gots a funny definition of "collateral damage".

Sounds to me like y'all're talkin' about "civilian casualties" instead.

Collateral damage is when ya go to tear down an old barn and it falls on the outhouse. The outhouse is "collateral damage". It's stuff ya broke but didn't mean to when ya were breakin' other stuff.

Ain't got much to do with killin' folks ya didn't intend on killin'.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Attack can be the best offense.

Isn't that what attacking is, offense as opposed to defense?

Oops, bad typo... I meant attack can be the best DEfense...

Collateral damage, technically, refers to any damage that is inflicted unintentionally, while in pursuit of a military target. By convention, that is a euphemism for civilian casualties.

The complete banning of collateral damage would almost certainly lead to the use of "human shields"--unscrupulous parties at war would mix their forces with civilians such that it would be impossible to stop them without killing any civilians.

Regarding the concept of collateral damage as "terrorism", I disagree. Terrorism is when the death (or panic) of civilians is an end in itself rather than a side effect of pursuing other goals.

Attack can be the best offense. If we are to preserve life, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the lives of the few to preserve the many. I am not saying, by any stretch that this is the way it should be. But when the deliberate killing of x can save the lives of 16x, or even x + 1, then the killing is morally defensible.

While purely defensive measures are the ideal, they often do not prevent the greatest loss...

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks. So really any moral justification for it has to be based on the idea that Americans are somehow more important than everyone else. That and of course if anything it has caused even more to hate America therefore increasing the chance of another terrorist attack.

Also this should probably be in general unless there is some terrorism resolution I am unaware of.

Americans are more important than anyone else. We demand that you stop all this America bashing as it is uncalled for and just shows how anti american you are. If this wasn't true people would stop talking about them constantly.

God bless America...

Attack can be the best offense. If we are to preserve life, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the lives of the few to preserve the many. I am not saying, by any stretch that this is the way it should be. But when the deliberate killing of x can save the lives of 16x, or even x + 1, then the killing is morally defensible.

While purely defensive measures are the ideal, they often do not prevent the greatest loss...

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks. So really any moral justification for it has to be based on the idea that Americans are somehow more important than everyone else. That and of course if anything it has caused even more to hate America therefore increasing the chance of another terrorist attack.

Also this should probably be in general unless there is some terrorism resolution I am unaware of.

Americans are more important than anyone else. We demand that you stop all this America bashing as it is uncalled for and just shows how anti american you are. If this wasn't true people would stop talking about them constantly.

God bless America...

I sincerely hope that you are joking, or are being sarcastic.

Otherwise... dare I ask why Americans are more important than anyone else?

We in Gurthark would fully support a resolution requiring that governments at war take all reasonable precautions to avoid civilian casualties, if it were clearly and reasonably phrased.

However, it is a fact that there are agressors in the world, and that sometimes countries must defend their borders. Occasionally, diplomacy does not work.

It is also a fact that sometimes, in war, there are civilian casualties. While these should be avoided if at all possible, it is often impossible for a country to mount an effective defense without allowing *some* possibility that civilians will die.

Equating civilian casualties that occur despite a government's best efforts to prevent them with the deliberate targeting of non-combatants is, frankly, ludicrous. It's the equivalent of equating a driver who is involved in an unavoidable accident with a driver who deliberately mows down pedestrians.

But can you say who is going out of their way to protect civilians? America's certainly not.

Nor did we claim it was. But the deliberate targetting of civilians on a large scale wasn't attempted either, a far cry from the Sept 11 terorist attacks, which deliberately killed several thouand, as you all know.

Colateral damage is unavoidable in war, your logic that because colateral damage happens we should not go to war, there was collateral damage in WW2, does that mean that we should have let The Third Reich conquer France, Britian, Africa, and then the United States last of all, does that mean that we should have let the Japanise conquer Australia and the Asian countries, does that mean that in WW1 we should have let the Centeral Power take over all of Europe, does that mean that we should have let the French feel the Iron Boot of Germany, that the British should have felt the Lash of Totalitarinism, does that mean that we (NOTE: I use "we" here to mean the US) should have left it untill Germany and Japan mounted and invasion of mainland America before we decided to attack the Axis, I hope to God not!

Colateral damage is unavoidable in war, your logic that because colateral damage happens we should not go to war, there was collateral damage in WW2

Why does everyone use WWII? The Korean war would fit here so well, and you practically bring up Hitler, thus brining in the old deabtors rule, he whi is first to mention Hitler concedes.

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks.

And Saddam has killed more civilians in his country than the US the moral argument doesn't really work.

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks.

Terrorism has killed far more people than any "war on terrorism" ever will...

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks. So really any moral justification for it has to be based on the idea that Americans are somehow more important than everyone else. That and of course if anything it has caused even more to hate America therefore increasing the chance of another terrorist attack.

Also this should probably be in general unless there is some terrorism resolution I am unaware of.

What do you think is powering your computer? *makes whatever sound oil makes*

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks. So really any moral justification for it has to be based on the idea that Americans are somehow more important than everyone else. That and of course if anything it has caused even more to hate America therefore increasing the chance of another terrorist attack.

Also this should probably be in general unless there is some terrorism resolution I am unaware of.

What do you think is powering your computer? *makes whatever sound oil makes*

Nuclear fission...

Attack can be the best offense. If we are to preserve life, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the lives of the few to preserve the many. I am not saying, by any stretch that this is the way it should be. But when the deliberate killing of x can save the lives of 16x, or even x + 1, then the killing is morally defensible.

While purely defensive measures are the ideal, they often do not prevent the greatest loss...

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks. So really any moral justification for it has to be based on the idea that Americans are somehow more important than everyone else. That and of course if anything it has caused even more to hate America therefore increasing the chance of another terrorist attack.

Also this should probably be in general unless there is some terrorism resolution I am unaware of.

Please substantiate your claim regarding the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. I assuming you are relying on the work of Prof. Marc Herold (sp?). If so, I suggest you read this:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/030402A.html

I don't have any reason to believe the 650 over the 1100 over the 1300 over the 4,000, but Prof. Herold's work does not appear to be reliable enough to use in reasoned debate.

Not that this matters. How many German civilians did the Allies kill in the various bombing campaigns that took place during WWII? And we're not even targetting civilians this time. Americans do not want to kill civilians, but if the deaths of, at most, a few thousand civilians is the price of bringing a nation of millions out from under the Taliban, and of crippling an organization that would deliberately kill another 3,000 (or more) civilians if it had the means, I'd say it is worth while.

Colateral damage is unavoidable in war, your logic that because colateral damage happens we should not go to war, there was collateral damage in WW2

Why does everyone use WWII? The Korean war would fit here so well, and you practically bring up Hitler, thus brining in the old deabtors rule, he whi is first to mention Hitler concedes.

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks.

And Saddam has killed more civilians in his country than the US the moral argument doesn't really work.

The "old debators rule" is intended for situations in which a comparison to Hitler is beyond rational thought. Saddam has threatened his neighbors and slaughtered his countrymen, often by gassing them. Sound familiar?

This might not actually fit here but I thought it was close.

'Bush's Illegal War' Questionnaire

Please answer as many of the following questions as you can, and as many with a straight face as possible. Please answer quickly as you already have all of the answers.

1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.

2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?

3. Further, could you please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.

4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?

5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?

6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?

7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?

8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you to kick him out for not paying the rent he owes?

9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?

10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?

11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?

12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?

13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?

14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?

15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?

16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?

17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?

18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?

19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?

20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?

21. Would Hillary?

22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?

23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?

Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD?

Attack can be the best offense.

Isn't that what attacking is, offense as opposed to defense?

Oops, bad typo... I meant attack can be the best DEfense...

Collateral damage, technically, refers to any damage that is inflicted unintentionally, while in pursuit of a military target. By convention, that is a euphemism for civilian casualties.

And not only that but it was an American who coined the phrase. The squeemish Yanks didn't and still don't like to call a spade a spade

Terrorism has killed far more people than any "war on terrorism" ever will...


Well, that is highly unlikely. Unless you want to lump all violent human rights abuses into the mix as "state-sponsored terrorism".

Indeed, nobody has yet come up with a suitable, generaly accepted definition for terrorism, so evaluating the death toll is impossible.

But I would estimate that so far the "war on terror" has probably cost well over 50,000 lives this past year - although the Pentagon refuses to put any estimates on Iraqi soldiers killed. But for a fast thought on that - Iraq HAD over 2,200 main battle tanks each with a three or four man crew depending on model. Almost none survived the war, most taken out with DU rounds or cluster bombs each of which generally leaves few survivors. Then start considering the other 3,700 APC's they had, the 2200 artillery pieces, and the 3,000 AA emplacements - almost all of which were targeted and destroyed. And finally work your way down to the foot soldiers. Iraq HAD a 375,000 man regular army plus over 400,000 reserves. How many do you think survived?

If 50,000 isn't conservative on the military deaths, then the 6,000+ civillians makes for a pretty high proportion of the total fatalities....


So. how many people did terrorists kill this year?

-Z-

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/intlter1.gif

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/intlter2.gif


http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/intlter3.gif

Sorry - that was me.

Terrorism is an act deliberately targetted at civilians in order to induce terror and panic and eventually, break the opponents will. These tactics spread throughout the world, esp in the middle east. (ie: Palestinian Suicide Bombers, Al Quada, Ansar al Islam, etc) While the US, on the other hand, devotes time and money into "smart weapons" that can strike a bunker without harming anything else. Our devotion to these smart weapons is proof of our intentions. It would have been much easier to simply Fuel Air Bomb the Iraqis, but we did not use our most powerful weapons (not counting nukes, those are just out there). And about the Iraqi Army, we destroyed the equipment, but the soldiers had already fled. We captured and released thousands, and most of the rest simply vanished. Only the Republican Guard and the Feyadeen (Saddam's personal butchers, the ones who gas civies) actually fought, as they knew they would be held responsible to their actions.


A note: Our war in Iraq killed less overall that Saddam killed every week.

Terrorism is an act deliberately targetted at civilians in order to induce terror and panic and eventually, break the opponents will. These tactics spread throughout the world, esp in the middle east. (ie: Palestinian Suicide Bombers, Al Quada, Ansar al Islam, etc) While the US, on the other hand, devotes time and money into "smart weapons" that can strike a bunker without harming anything else. Our devotion to these smart weapons is proof of our intentions. It would have been much easier to simply Fuel Air Bomb the Iraqis, but we did not use our most powerful weapons (not counting nukes, those are just out there). And about the Iraqi Army, we destroyed the equipment, but the soldiers had already fled. We captured and released thousands, and most of the rest simply vanished. Only the Republican Guard and the Feyadeen (Saddam's personal butchers, the ones who gas civies) actually fought, as they knew they would be held responsible to their actions.

A note: Our war in Iraq killed less overall that Saddam killed every week.

80,000 to 100,000 soldiers and civilians dead... this is more than the Nazis killed in Poland on a monthly basis.

Iraq has 24 million people. If your numbers are accurate, that means that Saddam Hussein kills 5.2 million people a year (100,000 times 52 weeks). He was in power for 15 years, so according to this, he killed triple the population of his own country :roll: .

Terrorism has killed far more people than any "war on terrorism" ever will...


Well, that is highly unlikely.

Terrorism has existed at least as long as there has been recorded history. Terrorism isn't a new thing.

Terrorism has killed far more people than any "war on terrorism" ever will...


Well, that is highly unlikely.

Terrorism has existed at least as long as there has been recorded history. Terrorism isn't a new thing.

Yes. And governments (or whatever the ruling power-structure of the day) have cracked down on it for just as long. Counting up the death toll on both sides, I would say that generally those IN power generally have exerted far more force and caused far more death than those fighting the people in power. Why? because they had the ability to cause more harm in the first place... which is why they had the power.

Terrorism has killed far more people than any "war on terrorism" ever will...


Well, that is highly unlikely.

Terrorism has existed at least as long as there has been recorded history. Terrorism isn't a new thing.

Yes. And governments (or whatever the ruling power-structure of the day) have cracked down on it for just as long. Counting up the death toll on both sides, I would say that generally those IN power generally have exerted far more force and caused far more death than those fighting the people in power. Why? because they had the ability to cause more harm in the first place... which is why they had the power.

That's true - but you also need to consider who died - and with what intent. In the case of terrorists, they specifically target civilians. In the case of the modern military - they target legitimate military or government targets. BIG difference.

Also intent - modern governments (democratic anyway) don't intend to cause civilian deaths/injuries - while terrorists intend to harm civilians.

Oh agreed Wolf.

However that wasn't his claim which I was disputing. He simply said that "Terrorism has killed far more people than any 'war on terrorism' ever will..." which I think is untrue.


And I think in historical context, the protection of civilians is a very recent thing. For most of history a good pillage and rule through fear and oppression was more often the norm.

[All of the below is OOC, of course.]


'Bush's Illegal War' Questionnaire

Please answer as many of the following questions as you can, and as many with a straight face as possible. Please answer quickly as you already have all of the answers.

1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.


There is no question that Saddam Hussein is far more evil than George W. Bush. The vast majority of people who oppose his presidency and opposed the war would agree with this. Please don't attack straw men.

Whether he is more *dangerous* is another matter. At his worst, Hussein was only really a danger to his own citizens--he was *once* a danger to his immediate neighbors, but it's unclear that he has been since 1992. By virtue of his leadership of the most powerful nation on earth, Bush has the potential to be a threat to the welfare of the entire world.

2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?

See question 1. Although the total number of people killed per year, worldwide, by the Bush administration likely rivals Hussein's record, at least since the end if the Iran-Iraq war.

3. Further, could you please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.

Far from it--Bush seems exceptionally loyal to his family, friends, and business contacts. This is not always a good thing.

4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?

While there is some evidence that Hussein possessed or was trying to acquire missiles with twice the legally permitted range, there is no evidence that he ever fired any of them. Southern Iraq borders on Kuwait; he could reach it with SCUDs he was legally permitted to have.

5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?

See above.

6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?

Huh? The duties of inspectors are often much like that of detectives, yes. I suppose some inspectors (D.I.s in the British system, for example) are actually detectives. Your point?

7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?

Personally, I supported the French plan, which would have upped inspections to the point where Hussein would have had no choice but to comply. Although near the end, it seems likely that he was complying. At this point, we may never know.

8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you to kick him out for not paying the rent he owes?

Fortunately, the United Nations does not share your feelings about this, or it would have kicked the U.S. out long ago for nonpayment of dues.

9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?

Because Hussein allowed the inspectors back in. His expulsion of the inspectors was the reason for the sanctions.

10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?

There are a number of guesses about this. One is that the administration had thought, and hoped, that we would find such weapons fairly, despite having no real evidence for their existence (I'm not arguing that Hussein is a choir boy, or even that one can trust him as far as throw him). For a variety of reasons--some vestiges of honesty, fear of further scandal, lack of opportunity--the administration might balk at actually planting these weapons. Of course, there's lots of time yet. I'm not counting any chickens.

11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?

Because one person is a lot easier to hide than an entire chemical weapons plant or stockpile? I wouldn't have thought this question particularly hard. Anyway, for all we know, Hussein has been out of the country since before the war began.

12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?

Of course, in some sense those weren't weapons of mass destruction, as traditionally construed. (They were not capable of taking out a city, for one thing.) But supposing I answered "yes." Would your argument be that we were justified in entering Iraq because they possessed *box-cutters*!?

13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?

The documentaiton on this case is pretty shoddy, actually. One CIA document, contradicted by some others. Assuming it's true, however--are you suggesting that we should attack every nation that contains terrorist training camps? That's probably about half the world, you realize. It certainly includes Pakistan and Indonesia, and probably includes Syria, Iran, the Phillippines, Saudi Arabia, a goodly portion of the other countries in the middle east, North Africa, and Southeast Asia, and some fairly substantial portion of South America. I'm sure I'm missing a few.

14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?

I have no idea. Bunkers for their leaders seems fairly plausible.

15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?

Because probably, at some point in the future, Iraq hoped to be able to restart their WMD program. I think that a properly funded inspection regime could have prevented this.

16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?

See above. Like I said, Hussein was an evil man. That doesn't mean preemptive war, at the cost of alienating most of the world, was the right answer.

17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?

Which UN resolutions are you referring to? The UN often condemned Iraq for non-cooperation with the inspectors, but that wasn't an issue shortly before the war began.

18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?

If they abandoned it, it was probably when they realized it was becoming virtually impossible to hide it.

19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?

This story has been thoroughly debunked. There is no credible evidence that these vehicles were outfitted as bio-weapons labs.

20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?

It depends. If they got in through airport security, whose budget has recently been slashed to pay for the war in Iraq, I'd probably say yes.

21. Would Hillary?

I don't know. I'm not Hillary Clinton and don't speak with her regularly.

22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?

Again, what does she have to do with this? Do you think that everyone who opposes the war lives together in some big house on the edge of town?

23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?

I assume this is a joke. And it's one in fairly bad taste. No, they don't. They exacerbate one another.

Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD?

Ha ha. No, actually, I think he was framed by United Nations black helicopters, under the secret control of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Vince Foster was going to expose it all; that's why they killed him.

All I can say about that is what do you think he does while on "vacation" at his Crawford ranch in Texas? He can't be acting as President....

Though the "war on terrorism" has killed far more innocent civilians than the WTC attacks. So really any moral justification for it has to be based on the idea that Americans are somehow more important than everyone else. That and of course if anything it has caused even more to hate America therefore increasing the chance of another terrorist attack.

Also this should probably be in general unless there is some terrorism resolution I am unaware of.

What do you think is powering your computer? *makes whatever sound oil makes*

Hydro Electric Power.

[All of the below is OOC, of course.]


8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you to kick him out for not paying the rent he owes?

Fortunately, the United Nations does not share your feelings about this, or it would have kicked the U.S. out long ago for nonpayment of dues.

I wish they would kick us out since our leadership is too wimpy to leave on their own. We should not belong to a group such as the UN who's mandate is so apparently anti-American in every way. We should not belong to a group that had UNICEF which convinced kids (me included) to go door to door to collect for feeding the hungry thruout the world when in fact the UN lied and we were simply feeding their General coffers none of which was credited to US's dues. We should not belong to a group such as the UN who has rules in place that makes it ok to have Iraq as chair of the disarmament committee and Syria and Iraq as co chairs of the humane committee (forget its exact name at the moment). We should not belong to a group such as the UN who has a constitution which if you scan it looks like it gives right to free speach, religion, etc in fact (article 9 section 3) strips them from every citizen in every member nation irregardless to their own constitution. And you can blame Bush Sr. for that he could have Vetoed it but chose not to. We should not belong to a group who when gives humanitarian aid strips the US symbols off of all the packages and replaces them with UN symbols so that the receivers think they came from the UN and not bought and paid for by the US in some cases 100% of it. None of which gets credited towards the US's owed dues. The UN is out to destroy the US via diplomacy and we should not be a part of it. It should be nothing more but a place to get together to discuss differences not the next world Government HQ!!!!!

WAR IN ANY FORM IS A TERRIBLE THING :evil:

However, as it will always be with us,either military or economic,
We have to defend our citizens the best we can.

The only way to defend is to stand united and develop better intellegence
co-ordination between responsible nations.

Join together and nip threats in the bud.

Do what my Nation does, send in Special Ops and take out the leaders.

OUR REGION HAS NEVER BEEN INVADED! HA

Oops . . . I shouldn't post so late at night. Forgot in my first one about Iraq. Duh. I concede the claim that the US has killed more in "war on terrorism" than the number of WTC attack casualties. I stand by my second argument, though.

10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?

Apparently he did not need to. How much of the American population believes, contrary to all existing evidence, that we'll find those weapons sooner or later? Besides, now that we're entrenched in Iraq, we cannot simply leave & say "oops . . . sorry, we made a mistake." WMDs or not, Bush's lies or not, he has his war and cannot simply abandon it (which would be worse for Iraq than if we had stayed out). Bush did not need to plant anything to get the war he wanted, as evidenced by the loyalty of his staunch supporters who will believe anything he says.

I will add that deposing Saddam was the right thing - he was a bad guy and did terrible things to his own people. However, Bush's politics were nothing short of atrocious - I could have done better, and I have as much subtlety as a redwood falling 20 stories into a pile of aluminum siding. He did not need the WMD thing, or any terrorism connection . . . all we morally needed was the humanitarian reason. We already had regional support from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran at least, all three having been threatened or attacked by Iraq within the last couple of decades. Add this to the fact that the post-war activities are getting more & more uncontrollable by the day . . . Bush can be compared to Civil War Gen. Burnsides, of whom Lincoln said (paraphrased): "only he could have snatched one last defeat out of the jaws of victory."

"Collateral damage is terrorism"

Well, by the definitions of each there is exactly zero overlap. Collateral damage is by definition unintentional while terrorism is intentional and with the purpose of creating fear. These do not mesh at all. I agree that there is no excuse for unintended deaths in today's world of high tech weaponry, but accidental deaths are very different from terrorist deaths.

"Collateral damage is terrorism"

Well, by the definitions of each there is exactly zero overlap. Collateral damage is by definition unintentional while terrorism is intentional and with the purpose of creating fear. These do not mesh at all. I agree that there is no excuse for unintended deaths in today's world of high tech weaponry, but accidental deaths are very different from terrorist deaths.

What about "shock and awe" the idea of dropping as many bombs as possible on a densly populated area to scare the population into submission? Does that count as terrorism?